These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22404377)

  • 21. ALS issues in clinical trials. Missing data.
    Thompson JL; Levy G
    Amyotroph Lateral Scler Other Motor Neuron Disord; 2004 Sep; 5 Suppl 1():48-51. PubMed ID: 15512872
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Reporting of sample-size calculations for randomized trials in dermatology: comparison of publications with registries.
    Weinberg T; Wang G; Lam K; Kitchen J; Chan AW
    Br J Dermatol; 2019 Apr; 180(4):929-930. PubMed ID: 30339744
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Review of randomized controlled trials: issues to consider when designing a trial.
    Pandis N
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Jun; 143(6):905-7. PubMed ID: 23726342
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The quality of reports of randomized trials in multiple sclerosis: a review.
    Signori A; Baccino A; Sormani MP
    Mult Scler; 2012 Jun; 18(6):776-81. PubMed ID: 22495947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The clinician as investigator: participating in clinical trials in the practice setting: Appendix 2: statistical concepts in study design and analysis.
    Lader EW; Cannon CP; Ohman EM; Newby LK; Sulmasy DP; Barst RJ; Fair JM; Flather M; Freedman JE; Frye RL; Hand MM; Jesse RL; Van de Werf F; Costa F;
    Circulation; 2004 Jun; 109(21):e305-7. PubMed ID: 15173053
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Describing the participants in a study.
    Pickering RM
    Age Ageing; 2017 Jul; 46(4):576-581. PubMed ID: 28472376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Adverse events in randomized trials: neglected, restricted, distorted, and silenced.
    Ioannidis JP
    Arch Intern Med; 2009 Oct; 169(19):1737-9. PubMed ID: 19858427
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Subgroup analyses.
    Oxman AD
    BMJ; 2012 Mar; 344():e2022. PubMed ID: 22422834
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Statistical principles: myths or facts?
    Sylvester R
    Onkologie; 2003 Dec; 26(6):520-1. PubMed ID: 14709923
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Statistical trial designs and clinical practice: are they compatible?
    Punt CJ
    Onkologie; 2003 Dec; 26(6):518-9. PubMed ID: 14709922
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Editorial: Randomised controlled trials of factorial design alias on how to speed up research on effectiveness of interventions without compromising its validity.
    Esposito M; Nieri M
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2016; 9(1):3-4. PubMed ID: 27022633
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Introducing the new CONSORT extension for stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials.
    Hemming K; Taljaard M; Grimshaw J
    Trials; 2019 Jan; 20(1):68. PubMed ID: 30658677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Sympathetic bias.
    Levy DM; Peart SJ
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Jun; 17(3):265-77. PubMed ID: 17925315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. How to use likelihood ratios to interpret evidence from randomized trials.
    Perneger TV
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Aug; 136():235-242. PubMed ID: 33930527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity.
    Carlisle JB
    Anaesthesia; 2012 May; 67(5):521-537. PubMed ID: 22404311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Separation of health and statistics.
    Church TR
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 Apr; 100(7):452-3. PubMed ID: 18364500
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Electronic monitoring: who needs a trojan horse?
    Vintzileos AM
    Birth; 1994 Dec; 21(4):235-6. PubMed ID: 7857472
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Randomized trials for the real world: making as few and as reasonable assumptions as possible.
    Baker SG; Kramer BS
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Jun; 17(3):243-52. PubMed ID: 17925312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Is Propensity Score Analysis a Valid Surrogate of Randomization for the Avoidance of Allocation Bias?
    Torres F; Ríos J; Saez-Peñataro J; Pontes C
    Semin Liver Dis; 2017 Aug; 37(3):275-286. PubMed ID: 28847037
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Reported methodological quality of split-mouth studies.
    Lesaffre E; Garcia Zattera MJ; Redmond C; Huber H; Needleman I;
    J Clin Periodontol; 2007 Sep; 34(9):756-61. PubMed ID: 17716311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.